On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 12:00:46 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 13:28:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:22:07 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 12/7/2013 10:55 AM, wrote:
Oversized furnaces suffer in the efficiency department. Undersized
furnaces just take a little longer to warm up a house, unless the wind
blows straight through like Stormy's trailer. Furnace efficiency
doesn't mean anything at all in a situation like that anyway.

I think a bit over sized isn't good. In the case
of my drafty trailer, I can always light a couple
stove burners if the furnace isn't keeping up.

Works out, OK. I went from 80k to 70k when I replaced,
and the 70k does fine. Of course, some cellulose in the
ceiling helps, a lot.
That's still almost TWICE the size of the furnace in my 2 stoey
house in Ontario.

Your house is a *tiny* two-story (very little ceiling square footage).
It's more like a small townhouse. Of course it has an apartment-sized
furnace.

Hmmm,
I don't believe what he's saying. I used to live in Toronto(Scarboro)
unless his house is match box sized house. LOL!

He said recently. IIRC it's around 1200ft^2, two story. Yes, pretty
small. I lived in Burlington VT (somewhat North of ON, where he
lives), in a ~1700ft^2 Cape Cod (a pretty efficient design). The
furnace was 150KBTU and in the coldest weather it was constantly
running.